Hi and thanks for visiting the best Ravens forum on the planet. You do not have to be a member to browse the various forums, but in order to post and interact with your purple brethren, you will have to **register**. It only takes a couple of minutes. You can also use your Facebook account to log in....just click on the blue 'FConnect' link at the very top of the page.

Re: This really erked me this weekend...

When I mentioned credit report I ment for abandoning his house not the truck. He might have paid cash for the truck with all that copper he stole plus the other stuff.

My friend gets mortgages for people. The house across the street has been empty for a year now. The guy walked out of there too. I haven't seen the inside so I don't know if he stripped it like the guy mentioned above. I'm thinking about buying it.

My friend told me not too. If he strippled it I will pay over $100,000 to fix it up and even if he didn't it will cost me $20,000. I can rent it for $1800 pr mo but she advised me not to.

Anyway, Deb said that the bank would have worked with him for a year and let him stay in it rather than leave it empty. The bank probably has $100 houses like that.

She's right. Over 1M homes are foreclosed. In Florida 20% of all homes are empty.

That's a sign to look at to see if the economy is recovering.

I actually agree with Galen about controls or something to penalize these people
that strip houses like that. Hundreds do it so a guy like me buying has to fix it
up.

The guy in the OP just messed up his credit report for the rest of his life. He'll
never get another house or loan again. It's easier declaring bankruptcy. That
only lasts 7 years and if his credit cards take a look at that report as most of them do periodically,
they will cancel all of them. He won't have any credit whatsover. That's how the system works.

I might have a nice truck but when he needs a new one in 5 or 6 years he won't be able to get it
unless he pays cash. He will have no credit. He screwed himself big time.

Re: This really erked me this weekend...

Originally Posted by AirFlacco

When I mentioned credit report I ment for abandoning his house not the truck. He might have paid cash for the truck with all that copper he stole plus the other stuff.

My friend gets mortgages for people. The house across the street has been empty for a year now. The guy walked out of there too. I haven't seen the inside so I don't know if he stripped it like the guy mentioned above. I'm thinking about buying it.

My friend told me not too. If he strippled it I will pay over $100,000 to fix it up and even if he didn't it will cost me $20,000. I can rent it for $1800 pr mo but she advised me not to.

Anyway, Deb said that the bank would have worked with him for a year and let him stay in it rather than leave it empty. The bank probably has $100 houses like that.

She's right. Over 1M homes are foreclosed. In Florida 20% of all homes are empty.

That's a sign to look at to see if the economy is recovering.

I actually agree with Galen about controls or something to penalize these people
that strip houses like that. Hundreds do it so a guy like me buying has to fix it
up.

The guy in the OP just messed up his credit report for the rest of his life. He'll
never get another house or loan again. It's easier declaring bankruptcy. That
only lasts 7 years and if his credit cards take a look at that report as most of them do periodically,
they will cancel all of them. He won't have any credit whatsover. That's how the system works.

I might have a nice truck but when he needs a new one in 5 or 6 years he won't be able to get it
unless he pays cash. He will have no credit. He screwed himself big time.

Abandoning a house stays with you the rest of your life.

I definitely think that a lot of the housing crisis is our fault anyway because far too many folks tried to "keep up with the Jones" and built the massive houses that they really couldn't afford. Banks are ultimately to blame for this for giving out these loans to people that they knew couldn't afford them [has anyone read anything on that conspiracy? Interesting stuff.], but I think more Americans should be pointing the finger at themselves for just being dumb. I know in the areas my wife and I are looking in Maryland, most of the foreclosed houses and short sale houses are these massive new construction houses.

Re: This really erked me this weekend...

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

I definitely think that a lot of the housing crisis is our fault anyway because far too many folks tried to "keep up with the Jones" and built the massive houses that they really couldn't afford. Banks are ultimately to blame for this for giving out these loans to people that they knew couldn't afford them [has anyone read anything on that conspiracy? Interesting stuff.], but I think more Americans should be pointing the finger at themselves for just being dumb. I know in the areas my wife and I are looking in Maryland, most of the foreclosed houses and short sale houses are these massive new construction houses.

I've got to disagree with placing the ultimate blame on the banks. They are part of the problem (as the book lays out) they gave out the loans I think more of the blame goes to the people who took them out. I mean if I took out a loan and couldn't afford to pay it back, I am not blaming anyone but me for that.

Re: This really erked me this weekend...

Can't really blame the banks.

They were being forced to lend to lesser qualified applicants least face the wrath of the federal government, thanks to the Community Reinvestment Act. Up until 2002, the feds were going after banks and fining them under the provisions of the act if they did not pass a certain percentages of loans to lesser qualified applicants. As a result, in 2002, that practice had stopped but by then it was too late.

Having bought three homes now, I can say with certainty nobody held a gun to my head, forcing me to sign the paperwork and taking on mortgage debt. Totally agree with NC. You have only yourself to blame if you have debt.

WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.

Re: This really erked me this weekend...

I've got to disagree with placing the ultimate blame on the banks. They are part of the problem (as the book lays out) they gave out the loans I think more of the blame goes to the people who took them out. I mean if I took out a loan and couldn't afford to pay it back, I am not blaming anyone but me for that.

I don't disagree that the people who took these loans out are at fault.

However, I think the banks are just as much to blame for allowing these people to think that they could afford these ridiculous loans. The banks KNEW they couldn't afford it and didn't advise them on reconsidering doing it. If you took the loan out and couldn't afford to pay it back, then yea, you're at fault, but if the bank could have advised you to reconsider because they were able to deduct that you couldn't afford the loan, then who's fault is it really?

If I were to go to a bank and try to get a loan for something and the bank didn't think I could pay it back, they'd send me on my merry way to some other place. The banks are and were partly responsible for the situation that we're in right now. The more I read about it, the more it seems like a total scam. Banks give out billions in loans they know cannot be paid back, government writes a check to banks for amount owed and still gets to sell the houses.

IMO, it's like 60/40 (60% of the blame being on the people/40% on the banks).

Re: This really erked me this weekend...

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Can't really blame the banks.

They were being forced to lend to lesser qualified applicants least face the wrath of the federal government, thanks to the Community Reinvestment Act. Up until 2002, the feds were going after banks and fining them under the provisions of the act if they did not pass a certain percentages of loans to lesser qualified applicants. As a result, in 2002, that practice had stopped but by then it was too late.

Having bought three homes now, I can say with certainty nobody held a gun to my head, forcing me to sign the paperwork and taking on mortgage debt. Totally agree with NC. You have only yourself to blame if you have debt.

Agreed, but if you go to a car dealership and want to buy a BMW and only make $25,000 a year then the dealership is going to tell you that they're sorry, but they can't sell you a BMW because you'd not be able to afford the payments.

All I'm saying is that the banks took advantage of the situation. It's not all their fault, but they're definitely at fault in this whole mess.

Re: This really erked me this weekend...

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

Agreed, but if you go to a car dealership and want to buy a BMW and only make $25,000 a year then the dealership is going to tell you that they're sorry, but they can't sell you a BMW because you'd not be able to afford the payments.

All I'm saying is that the banks took advantage of the situation. It's not all their fault, but they're definitely at fault in this whole mess.

Using your analogy, there isn't an act of congress forcing the BMW dealership to sell that car to the lesser qualified person and if the BMW dealer failed to do so, they'd face very stiff fines.

There was for mortgages. For a long time.

And I fail to see how the banks were taking advantage of this. They make their money when people pay back their mortgages, not when people default. It's in their best interest ensure the folks getting mortgages do so under good terms with an ability to pay them back.

These days, there are very few banks even funding mortgages -- BofA, Wells Fargo, Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac -- they were the ones being forced to lend to people who were not qualified.

WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.

Re: This really erked me this weekend...

Using your analogy, there isn't an act of congress forcing the BMW dealership to sell that car to the lesser qualified person and if the BMW dealer failed to do so, they'd face very stiff fines.

There was for mortgages. For a long time.

And I fail to see how the banks were taking advantage of this. They make their money when people pay back their mortgages, not when people default. It's in their best interest ensure the folks getting mortgages do so under good terms with an ability to pay them back.

These days, there are very few banks even funding mortgages -- BofA, Wells Fargo, Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac -- they were the ones being forced to lend to people who were not qualified.

The banks were going to get their money regardless. Either the people who took the mortgage were going to pay it back or the government would bail them out, which they did.

What was the point of forcing banks to give out mortgages to folks who couldn't afford it? Who's bright idea was that bill?

Re: This really erked me this weekend...

The banks were going to get their money regardless. Either the people who took the mortgage were going to pay it back or the government would bail them out, which they did.

Well, that was the end result. But not every bank got money and that was certainly not their intention. And it was nothing close to the amount they lost from bad mortgages. Remember, they make their money on the interest. They don't see interest obey unless the note is getting paid so they have a strong vested interest in making sure they lend money to the right folks AND it gets paid back.

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

What was the point of forcing banks to give out mortgages to folks who couldn't afford it? Who's bright idea was that bill?

The perceived issue was that lesser qualified folks, typically minorities, were being discriminated on by the banks by not approving their applications. The idea was to help minorities get mortgages and it was well-intended enough. It was a bipartisan bill passed back in 1977 and, at first, didn't have the element of enforcement to it (meaning, banks were not getting fined) That was not added to the bill until the late 1990's.

So, to answer your question, it was the federal governments bright idea.

WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.

Re: This really erked me this weekend...

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

The perceived issue was that lesser qualified folks, typically minorities, were being discriminated on by the banks by not approving their applications. The idea was to help minorities get mortgages and it was well-intended enough. It was a bipartisan bill passed back in 1977 and, at first, didn't have the element of enforcement to it (meaning, banks were not getting fined) That was not added to the bill until the late 1990's.

So, to answer your question, it was the federal governments bright idea.

Re: This really erked me this weekend...

Yea, I heard a speaker say it just wasn't the poor people trying to get the American dream.
There were people that upgraded their homes from $600G to $1M and what not. There were
escalating interest rates and the dummies figured them out for the first year but not the
4th or 5th year so when it ballooned, they were screwed.

We've said many times that it started with Clinton wanting each American to have the American dream and he got the Fannies and Freddies to make that happen and they gave loans w/o
background checks. Then the gov't got the banks to do it.

When OBY issued the tarp $$ a condition was attached that they loan it out to the people
but they didn't. They weren't getting screwed again so they hoarded the money. BOA
paid their $59B loan back in 7 months and CitiCorp and the others by 9 months.

During that time they got interest on those billions. Now figure 3 or 5% or whatever on
$59B for 7 or 8 months and you can see how they paid the Fed off. They even said they
did it with cash on hand.

That's how they got the cash. I posted a link that it will take 10 years to occupy all
those vancant homes but I just read where people with money are starting to buy
property again because they know it is going up.